5 ms·

If you read this post and think it's a bizarre exaggeration, consider that the UN declared that Assange's decision to confine himself in the Ecuadorian embassy

If you read this post and think it's a bizarre exaggeration, consider that the UN declared that Assange's decision to confine himself in the Ecuadorian embassy was "arbitrary detention". Similiarly, Ecuador's decision to temporarily deprive Assange of internet access was compared to solitary confinement, supposedly tantamount to torture. Clearly there's a certain amount of hysteria surrounding this case. Assange is not a political prisoner. The US is going after him for allegedly being involved in the exfiltration of state secrets, not for opposing or criticizing the US. Also, being strip-searched, handcuffed, and confined to a cell is not torture. None of that is to say that Assange is guilty or that American legal reasoning holds up.

einpoklum 7y ago
Assange did not "decide to confine himself" anywhere. That's like saying that if someone has threatened to beat you up if you leave your house and is waiting outside all the time, then you've "decided to confine yourself to your home". Anyway, this has all been deliberated upon by international bodies - the UN working group on arbitrary detention has come to the conclusion that Assange was being _detained_ by the UK in the embassy, unfairly. Now things have changed, with the UK apprehending him. He _is_ a 'political prisoner'. The definition is: "Someone imprisoned because they have opposed or criticized the government responsible for their imprisonment." Indeed, the US is (mostly) responsible for Assange's imprisonment, and the imprisonment is because of his oppositionary and critical actions towards the US. The fact that Assange is held "by proxy" does not change his status. (Note that being a political prisoner does not mean you did not do what you're charged with. You may have and you may have not. Also, it doesn't mean you're a good or bad person.)
- leftyted 7y ago
  The only way you, or the UN, can justify these perspectives is if you grant 0 probability that Assange was involved in the theft of state secrets or if you think he was involved, but it was okay because "the US is evil". Fine. But you can't expect the US government and its allies to accept that theory...
  - einpoklum 7y ago
    Like I wrote above - being a political prisoner does not make you a better person. And it doesn't make your cause just, or the state which you oppose evil. Having said that: 1. Part of a journalist's job is to obtain state secrets and publish them. Obtaining them is often some form or another of theft. But journalism is important enough even to property-ownership-sanctifying democracies that journalists get a free pass on "borderline theft". 2. If the US had though Assange had assisted in stealing state secrets, it would have: (a) Made that accusation earlier than 13 years after the fact and (b) Demanded his extradition fair at that time. US government statements in recent years, especially Pompeo's characterization of Wikileaks, suggests other motives for the current action. 3. If you'll read the linked-to story you'll see that it is quite unlikely that Assange is guilty of what's attributed to him, even regardless of the circumstances I mentioned.
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      > 2. If the US had though Assange had assisted in stealing state secrets, it would have: (a) Made that accusation earlier than 13 years after the fact What? The original exfiltration of data happened in 2010: "In early 2010, she leaked classified information to WikiLeaks and confided this to Adrian Lamo, an online acquaintance." So I have no idea where you're coming up with "13 years after the fact". And are you also trying to claim that the US government has NOT, until now, claiming that Assange had assisted? In fact, the number is closer to 2 years, if that: "Julian Assange was allegedly investigated by the Eastern District of Virginia grand jury for computer-related crimes committed in the U.S. in 2012. His request for asylum was granted and he remained a resident in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012. In 2019, an indictment from 2017 was made public". > But journalism is important enough even to property-ownership-sanctifying democracies that journalists get a free pass on "borderline theft". Journalism ethics preclude "encouraging the committing of further crimes" (exfiltrating additional data, using third party credentials to "cover tracks", possibly implicating innocent parties), nor actively committing crimes (actively assisting in gaining additional access to classified systems), in any way shape or form. What you refer to is an acknowledgement that a journalist is not guilty of a crime _merely_ because someone passed them stolen information.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  > Assange did not "decide to confine himself" anywhere. That's like saying that if someone has threatened to beat you up if you leave your house and is waiting outside all the time, then you've "decided to confine yourself to your home". We'll never know how things might have gone differently had Assange turned himself in for questioning upon the first investigation in Sweden, because he absconded, claiming that it was a set-up. The bell cannot be un-rung, and the way that things have played out now cannot be a priori "proven" (if indeed they had, then his fears would have been justified, but that is _entirely speculative_).
  - markdown 7y ago
    > We'll never know how things might have gone differently had Assange turned himself in for questioning upon the first investigation in Sweden, because he absconded, claiming that it was a set-up. 1. We now know it was indeed a setup. 2. We now know he did indeed make himself available for questioning. https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      He made himself available for questioning _after_ sequestering himself in the Ecuadorian embassy, and offering to do it in a way that was satisfactory to him - _not_ when the accusations were made. And I don't think it is at all as "known"/"proved" (Melzer himself recognizes it as conjecture and supposition, in among the odd handling of the case - which is somewhat to be expected - how many other cases like this involved someone claiming asylum in a third party country?) as planned at the end game of what happened in Sweden was "indictment in the US".
      - einpoklum 7y ago
        No. He made himself available for questioning already in Sweden, and asked the authorities whether they need him for it or he can leave. Also, he made himself available for questioning in a place where he would not be in danger of persecution by US and/or UK authorities - which is quite fair.

einpoklum 7y ago

Assange did not "decide to confine himself" anywhere. That's like saying that if someone has threatened to beat you up if you leave your house and is waiting outside all the time, then you've "decided to confine yourself to your home". Anyway, this has all been deliberated upon by international bodies - the UN working group on arbitrary detention has come to the conclusion that Assange was being _detained_ by the UK in the embassy, unfairly. Now things have changed, with the UK apprehending him. He _is_ a 'political prisoner'. The definition is: "Someone imprisoned because they have opposed or criticized the government responsible for their imprisonment." Indeed, the US is (mostly) responsible for Assange's imprisonment, and the imprisonment is because of his oppositionary and critical actions towards the US. The fact that Assange is held "by proxy" does not change his status. (Note that being a political prisoner does not mean you did not do what you're charged with. You may have and you may have not. Also, it doesn't mean you're a good or bad person.)

leftyted 7y ago
The only way you, or the UN, can justify these perspectives is if you grant 0 probability that Assange was involved in the theft of state secrets or if you think he was involved, but it was okay because "the US is evil". Fine. But you can't expect the US government and its allies to accept that theory...
- einpoklum 7y ago
  Like I wrote above - being a political prisoner does not make you a better person. And it doesn't make your cause just, or the state which you oppose evil. Having said that: 1. Part of a journalist's job is to obtain state secrets and publish them. Obtaining them is often some form or another of theft. But journalism is important enough even to property-ownership-sanctifying democracies that journalists get a free pass on "borderline theft". 2. If the US had though Assange had assisted in stealing state secrets, it would have: (a) Made that accusation earlier than 13 years after the fact and (b) Demanded his extradition fair at that time. US government statements in recent years, especially Pompeo's characterization of Wikileaks, suggests other motives for the current action. 3. If you'll read the linked-to story you'll see that it is quite unlikely that Assange is guilty of what's attributed to him, even regardless of the circumstances I mentioned.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    > 2. If the US had though Assange had assisted in stealing state secrets, it would have: (a) Made that accusation earlier than 13 years after the fact What? The original exfiltration of data happened in 2010: "In early 2010, she leaked classified information to WikiLeaks and confided this to Adrian Lamo, an online acquaintance." So I have no idea where you're coming up with "13 years after the fact". And are you also trying to claim that the US government has NOT, until now, claiming that Assange had assisted? In fact, the number is closer to 2 years, if that: "Julian Assange was allegedly investigated by the Eastern District of Virginia grand jury for computer-related crimes committed in the U.S. in 2012. His request for asylum was granted and he remained a resident in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012. In 2019, an indictment from 2017 was made public". > But journalism is important enough even to property-ownership-sanctifying democracies that journalists get a free pass on "borderline theft". Journalism ethics preclude "encouraging the committing of further crimes" (exfiltrating additional data, using third party credentials to "cover tracks", possibly implicating innocent parties), nor actively committing crimes (actively assisting in gaining additional access to classified systems), in any way shape or form. What you refer to is an acknowledgement that a journalist is not guilty of a crime _merely_ because someone passed them stolen information.
FireBeyond 7y ago
> Assange did not "decide to confine himself" anywhere. That's like saying that if someone has threatened to beat you up if you leave your house and is waiting outside all the time, then you've "decided to confine yourself to your home". We'll never know how things might have gone differently had Assange turned himself in for questioning upon the first investigation in Sweden, because he absconded, claiming that it was a set-up. The bell cannot be un-rung, and the way that things have played out now cannot be a priori "proven" (if indeed they had, then his fears would have been justified, but that is _entirely speculative_).
- markdown 7y ago
  > We'll never know how things might have gone differently had Assange turned himself in for questioning upon the first investigation in Sweden, because he absconded, claiming that it was a set-up. 1. We now know it was indeed a setup. 2. We now know he did indeed make himself available for questioning. https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    He made himself available for questioning _after_ sequestering himself in the Ecuadorian embassy, and offering to do it in a way that was satisfactory to him - _not_ when the accusations were made. And I don't think it is at all as "known"/"proved" (Melzer himself recognizes it as conjecture and supposition, in among the odd handling of the case - which is somewhat to be expected - how many other cases like this involved someone claiming asylum in a third party country?) as planned at the end game of what happened in Sweden was "indictment in the US".
    - einpoklum 7y ago
      No. He made himself available for questioning already in Sweden, and asked the authorities whether they need him for it or he can leave. Also, he made himself available for questioning in a place where he would not be in danger of persecution by US and/or UK authorities - which is quite fair.